Copyright warning - bloggers!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:48 AM

"Jim you were agreeing,with Matt Keen who was talking not about your collection ,but about his songs.Matt Keen said[I personally would love it if hundreds of extra people were listening to my [MATT KEENS STUFF] etc etc.
Of course you cant see anything wrong with the Last quote,because you cant see anything apart from your blinkered narrow perspective".


I don't want to be associated with Jim's straight jacketed approach.

I am all for professional earning what they can/should from their work, whether thats trad.. arrnged by.. or whatever

My original motivation for posting was a concern for how we might promote our music on the net, using the reality of downloads.


SEDAYNE - a fxxking museum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:29 AM

Thankyou for that thoughtful and informative post, Jim. But I'm still confused by your suggestion that singers and songwriters 'cling tightly' to their songs.

I really don't think people do - or can. Once a song is published anyone can sing it, without permission - that what publishing means. I can record a Steve Knightly song without asking him, I merely have to attribute it correctly so that he recieves the royalties he is due. (And I checked this with him when I did)!

An arrangement however just means a version. Unlike a writer's copyright, it really only applies to a singer's own performances of that registered arrangement.

Do you have evidence of artists telling others that thay cannot sing certain songs because the artist has registered an arrangement or a writer's copyright? If so then it's just sound and fury signifying nothing, in law - or so I was told by PRS when I checked with them many years ago. (Though maybe I misunderstood - in which case I'll need to do some back-tracking)!

As I said above, registering an arrangement doesn't prevent anyone else from singing the song, or registering their own arrangement (though they do have to members of PRS to do this).

Royalties are collected on, in theory, every public performance of every song. Who recieves that royalty is then down to who is credited on the sheet (assuming one is filled in, which is not always necessary, but that's a complex story in its own right).

None of this could be called a failure to pass on the material. In fact by singing a song the artists IS passing on the material with every performance.

Tom

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:53 PM

Tom,
We have no way of knowing what the original composers desired should happen to their songs; whether they should be adapted, changed, re-located; (wonder what they would have made of accompaniment - guitars, bouzoukis, keyboards!)
When we started recording here in West Clare there was still the remnants of a song-writing tradition - largely praise songs about the area, humourous ones about local events, political pieces about the struggle for independence, or laments about having to leave home to earn a living. In the main they were songs for the moment; they were sung for a short time then forgotten (except by the tape-recorder). We recorded dozens of such songs which must have been made during the singers' lifetimes, but more often than not we failed to find the name of the composer, once they had been heard a few times the composers did not seem to care what happened to them, they had done their job and that was that.
This was also the situation thirty years ago with the Travellers.
My observation remains - the tradition and the early revival appeared to be more ready to share their material than the present revival is - it seems ownership has become a major issue.
Kennedy took this to an extreme by creating a cottage industry to market pilfered material (pilfered is perhaps not strong enough a term - wholesale looting might be better). Dominic Behan adopted a similar approach to Irish song, albeit on a smaller scale.
A great deal of Pats' and my time over the last thirty odd years has been in supporting archives in order that ours and other collectors' material can be first preserved and then distributed. We have supported our work with our day jobs (electrician and office worker), quite often with some difficulty (don't get me wrong – it wasn't a crusade on our parts, our motives were purely selfish; we did it because it gave (gives) us a great deal of pleasure).
We have been involved in the production of around a dozen albums of field recordings; in each case the proceeds for these have been automatically donated to either the National Sound Archive or The Irish Traditional Music Archive (again, not altruism on our part, but a desire not to be seen by our singers making money out of their labours).
Wherever the proceeds went, our main motivation has always been the distribution of the material; if it is not bought, I'm just as happy to see it passed on in other ways.
It disturbs me nowadays when I see traditional 'arrangements' copyrighted (I never got the explanation for this term that I requested earlier in this thread). The Cap'n is of course right (had to happen sometime - joke Cap'n)); the way the law stands at present, performers can claim as their own any traditional material they wish with the help of a few minor tweaks and as far as their own compositions are concerned they don't have to pass them on if they don't wish to.
The revival I came into was based on sharing, passing on, swapping. I know, for instance, that many of the songs MacColl researched for albums, (Alan Tyne of Harrow, Furze Field, The Vintner, Sheath and Knife, Song of The Trades, for instance) were doing the rounds of the clubs long before he recorded them because he never hesitated in passing them on to other singers. I remember standing on the stairs leading up to The Singers Club one night and recording Burke and Hare from him, having just heard him sing it for the first time. (Sorry to bang on about MacColl, but he was a major influence and helped to shape much of my thinking on folksong). This was also the case with his, and many other songwriters attitudes to their own compositions; the principle attitude of performers was that songs were to be circulated rather than marketed. This seems to have largely gone.
Of course I don't agree with distributing peoples own compositions or their recordings without their permission – not because it is illegal (any law that allows the likes of Kennedy to get away with what he did can't be anything but an ass!) – but because it's simply bad manners not to ask.
This doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on those who are not prepared to pass on their material (traditional, arranged or self-penned).
Nor does it mean I'm not going to comment on what I see as a deterioration in attitude on threads like this.
In the past it has been my experience that those who cling on tightest to their songs and music are usually the ones who have the least to offer.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 05:36 AM

Tom Iagree.
Jim Carroll,you are an amateur collector[itwas not your livelihood],I dont know what your job was, but you expected to get paid for it.
Anne had her own compositions[we are not talking about traditional music ]used without her permission,they are her property,she has to give permission first,that is the law.
composed music differs from traditional music,however composed arrangements are also copyrighted[MartinCarthys guitar arrangement of Scarborough Fair],that means the song[but not his arrangement is available ,the arrangement must have his his permission,it was his creative work] that is the law.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:18 AM

Ok, but the point I'm trying to discuss, Jim, is the question 'did the original writer feel that his song belonged to everyone?'

It's likely that at least some writers in the 17th 18th and 19th centuries had a partly professional motivation and felt that they owned their songs - so financial advantage can't be entirely ruled out.

It's always been the case that in time songs pass into public ownership - though that process was not formalised in law until relatively recently. So Walter's view on ownership was a simple statement of fact, and one that every source singer would share. By definition source singers were aware of the danger that 'their' songs could die with them, so obviously they'd decided to share them for posterity - and thank God they did.

But in times past some people might not have been so keen to see their work widely distributed and avialable, certainly not some writers. Reputations tend to rest on repertoire, though the simple act of singing a song - to anyone - has always let the cat out of the bag, so to speak!

The crucial change was recording. In olden times you'd need to listen carefully to a song a good few times to learn it and write it down - so the co-operation of the singer was essential if a song was to be passed on intact (which helps explain why we have so many versions of songs that might have been heard once, and then re-written from a few memorised fragments).

Once wax recordings arrived it got a lot easier - but you still needed permission and co-operation from your source. By the time everyone had musical reproduction equipment at home, and recordings were widely available, the ethical situation had changed.

Now you could own a record of a song, exactly as it came from the horses mouth (but only one horse, remember), and that record would stand for ever.

Now it was ok to take quite big liberties with songs, because people could go back to the source recording if they chose to - in fact to lots of source recordings of different versions. This changed the morality of song-bearing, and it was down to the collectors that it happened (thankyou again)!

My problem is that I still don't understand the tenet that seems to underlie many of your posts on this topic, Jim: that revival and contemporary singers somehow 'possess' traditional songs.

This is just not possible in law, and I don't think I know of any singer who even tries.

We use and develop tredational song, and we earn money on our recordings and arrangements (but only from others if our arrangements are copied very very closely), but we don't and can't posses the song itself - any more than Walter could - and we can't stop anyone else using it, and never could (and never would).

As I said above, the only way to do this is to claim you wrote a traditional song yourself. This may have happened in times gone by but it's very rare now.

Doing as Kennedy did and restricting access to a collection so that he could gain revenue from it is not at all the same thing as trying to possess or own the songs therein.

If the songs are available they are de facto published. As soon as someone buys a CD or reads the book, they can use those songs freely, (and attribute accordingly, one hopes), and they did and do. All the collector owns is the recording of that collected version of the song, not the song itself - which was, is, and always will be in public ownership.

If a collector is happy to (and can afford to) make his collection free to all then so much the better and all praise to him or her, but that won't affect the ownership of the songs either.

Tom

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:43 AM

Tom,
I was at the talk Pegg gave - I didn't think he was joking, nor did the rest of his audience, hence Trevor Fisher's pamphlet response.
We can put all sorts of interpretations on why traditional singers answered the way they did should we choose not to take them at their word - after working for over 20 years with Walter Pardon, when he told us he believed the songs belonged to everyone I thought I knew him well enough to believe him (and agree with him). Our reason for collecting was always the 'posterity' one, not the 'I'm gonna make you famous' one. Without exception it has been my experience the the desire to possess traditional songs is a revival phenomenon rather than one encountered among source singers.
Guest (2)
If you are right we borrowers of the tradition are faced with the dilemma in persuading somebody to part with something freely in order that somebody else might make their living from it - or are you suggesting that market forces should apply to traditional song as they does to commercial music? If so, professional performers have spent a long time living off ; sweat-shop labour
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,guest 2
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:45 PM

Jim, if Bob Pegg was earning his living from his singing his answer was not only honest, it was the only answer.
What's your motive for going to work?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:13 PM

There is some evidence that in times long past at least some of the 'song bearers' who transmitted traditional songs down the generations might also have doing it at least partly for money. (And anyway I'd suggest that Bob was almost certainly joking - you can't be that good and not also be passionate about your work)!

While we should always admire and respect the people from whom traditional songs were collected, they were only the 'bearers' of those songs at that point in history. Their personal philosophies re the 'ownership' of songs are a snapshot, at the date of collection: A key part of the story, but only a part.

Also, one might surmise that the way source singers spoke about their material might have been influenced by the fact that they were speaking to a collector, and aware that 'their' songs and versions - at that point known only to a few - where about to become much more widely available. This might have tended to concentrate their minds on the moral aspects of 'song ownership' - something that previous generations of singers might not have thought so deeply about - specially if they were 'semi pro.'

Just a suggestion tha knows.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 04:36 PM

Cap'n,
The groups you mentioned - and others - came and went without leaving anything of lasting value to traditional song. Early in the seventies (I have the dates here somewhere, but can't immediately lay my hands on them, Bob Pegg (of Mr Fox) spoke at The National Folk Festival at Loughborough. He was asked by a member of the audience why he performed the way he did; his reply was "for the money". The end result was a pamphlet entitled "We're Only in it For The Money" by Trevor Fisher.
I admired Bob's honesty, but not his motives,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 03:41 PM

Jim you were agreeing,with Matt Keen who was talking not about your collection ,but about his songs.Matt Keen said[I personally would love it if hundreds of extra people were listening to my [MATT KEENS STUFF] etc etc.
Of course you cant see anything wrong with the Last quote,because you cant see anything apart from your blinkered narrow perspective.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 03:00 PM

Cap'n
Please read the last paragraph of my last posting carefully (concentration seems to be a major problem with you).
Earlier I wrote:
"I personally would love it if there were hundreds of extra people listening to my stuff."
Absolutely; we certainly don't make avcailable our collection for the money!
"These songs have lasted ,because they have been passed on,if that passing on stops because people wish to make a living out of them they will cease to be ours and they will die."
Absolutely - can't see anything wrong with that one either.
Horselips! The Spinners! Fairport! - can you forward me your address - we appear to be living on a different planet!
Jim Carroll
PS The weather's lovely - thank you for asking

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:38 AM

Here's a few thoughts I recently posted on the Harvest Home forum that might be of some relevance here.

i)The condition of traditional song is perilous enough without subjecting them to any further interference. Treat them as listed buildings, the interiors and exteriors of which amount to irreplaceable national treasures all too vulnerable to the ravages of time and ill-advised DIY make-overs. What else is Liege and Leif but a sequence of tasteless, bland modernisations of some nice old characterful properties; the wattle & daub of the originals ripped out and replaced with mass produced breeze block and plaster board; sash windows replaced with UPVC and the open fires with flame-effect gas fires?

ii) The problem is that there is a very definite cut off point between the cultural and social conditions in which the traditional songs arose, and that which exists now. We have lost the continuity in which these songs came into being and as such the only thing we should do with them is observe, and source, and delight in their myriad wonders.

In a nutshell, they are not ours to mess with in the first place - not in any way, shape or form - and God knows there is enough work still to be done in simply learning and singing them without resorting to such underhand methods as addition and interpretation.

We lovers of traditional song are not so much the keepers of a tradition, rather the volunteer curators of a museum, entrusted with the preservation of a few precious, priceless and irreplaceable artefacts: hand-crafted tools we no longer know the names of (let alone what they were actually used for) ; hideous masks of woven cornstalks (which are invariably asumed to be pagan) ; and hoary cases of singular taxidermy wherein beasts long extinct are depicted in a natural habitat long since vanished.

Not only is such a museum a beacon for the naturally curious, it's a treasure in and of itself, an anachronism in age of instant (and invariable soulless) gratification, and as such under constant threat by those who want to see it revamped; cleaned up with computerised displays and 'interactive' exhibits and brought into linethe with the rest of commodified cultural presently on offer.

But not only is this museum is our collective Pit-Rivers, it is a museum which, in itself, is just as much an artefact of a long-vanished era as the objects it contains. It is delicate, and crumbling, but those who truly love it wouldn't have it any other way - and quite rightly so.   

iii) The point is that the traditional songs are already dead; they're as dead as the traditional singers that sang them and the traditional cultures to which they once belonged; they're as dead as fecking dodos the lot of them - but we must never forget...

As far as their adaptation goes... of course anyone can do anything they like with them; God knows I certainly have (though a good deal less so in recent years, m'lud) but to do so in the name of 'the tradition' shows a complete lack of both respect to and understanding of their cultural provenance which is pretty much the whole of the case.

iv) One thing that's immediately apparent even in the most casual study of traditional song is the fluidity in which they once existed in their natural habitat, hence the innumerable versions and variations we know & love today. Traditional songs were shaped by the innumerable voices that sang them; passing them on via an oral tradition in which the songs evolved according to that mysterious process whereby the subjective idiosyncrasies of the individual singers interface with the objective cultural context of which they were part to create something truly wondrous.

This is primary paradise of traditional song; a veritable dream-time in which we find them scampering in the new-mown meadows of what some of us still perceive as an agrarian utopia, before the advent of chemicals and mechanisation. So along come the song collectors, recognising that these songs are part of a social context that even in the early years of the last century is beginning to look decidedly fragile, and they do their level best to 'preserve' them.

Taxidermy is, alas, an imperfect science (as the recent research into the Dodo has shown), so what comes down to us in the collections tells us as much about the collectors as it does about the people they were collective from - the stuffers rather than the stuffed, as it were; because one does get the impression that these well-healed paternalists weren't altogether too concerned with the broader cultural condition of these grubby rustics whose precious repertoires they so hungrily plundered.

One finds the same thing in folklore; the 'paganisation' we see today is the result of the self-same paternalism that was used to justify the evils of colonialism - it's there in the cultural condescension that would interpret any given folk custom as being somehow 'vestigial' of something now 'long forgotten'. For example, when the thoroughly aristocratic Lady Raglan first named her medieval ecclesiastical foliate-head a 'Green Man', she did so fully in the faith that the Jacks-in-the-Green (etc.) of British folk custom were survivals of pagan fertility rites quaintly perpetuated by an ignorant lower order of society unwittingly preserving (as mere superstition) an ancient belief system that they themselves couldn't possibly understand, either in terms of its 'true' provenance or else its 'real' meaning. That there is no 'real' meaning is perhaps the ultimate irony; the medium is the message and their experience entirely empirical.   


To take the example of the wonderful Buy Broom Buzzems as recorded by Bruce & Stokoe in The Northumbrian Minstrelsy from the singing of Blind Willie Purvis of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; here they freely admit that they chose to omit several of Mr Purvis's verses because they considered them to be somehow extraneous to the sense of the song. What we wouldn't give to hear those extraneous verses now...

A L Lloyd did some sterling work of course, but as Nigel points out much of it was decidedly suspect; I cringe every time I hear Jack Orion (which is often sung unquestioningly as a traditional ballad) and his theories on the origin of Jazz as outlined in the introduction to The Penguin Book of English Folk song beggar belief, even by the standards of the time.

****

Just thoughts as I say, albeit rather polemical I admit, mainly inspired by the pile of Topic Voice of the People CDs that came my way recently...

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 05:10 AM

GoodMorning Jim ,hows the weather in clare,its afine morning here.
The bloggers are not receiving payment,but they are using other peoples material without permission,they are depriving people of royalties and sales[every cd downloaded for free is a cd not sold].
the similarity between kennedy and bloggers is this they took /take other peoples material without permission.
you are surely not going to argue that its not alright to do what Kennedy did ,but it is ok to do what bloggers do,even though they are depriving people of sales and royalties.
My Point is Kennedy used material without the owners consent,and while Kennedy made money out of it ,He also deprived the owners of the music the opportunity to make money out of it.
so Bloggers and Kennedy have two things in common,the unlawful use of material,and the deprivation of the rightful owners of the music,sales and royalties[money.
you have made two statements ,I QUOTE, I find myself totally in agreement with MrKeen I personally would love it if there were hundreds of extra people listening to my stuff.
Second quote,These songs have lasted ,because they have been passed on,if that passing on stops because people wish to make a living out of them they will cease to be ours and they will die.
First quote,Jim ,presumably you mean once you have given permission for them to be used,Anne has not given permission,neither was Kennedy given permission.
SECOND QUOTE,Anne is talking about her own compositions not traditional music,.
however ANAHATA made a good point, the present copyright rules for trad arr can act as an incentive ,to record traditional material.
Finally,The Folk Revival,Has in fact helped to keep traditional music alive ,because there has been a financial incentive,especially those more commercial bands The Fairport,Spinners Steeleyes
Horslips etc,they may cease to be played the way you like them Jim ,but they will not die.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 03:29 AM

Cap'n
Perhaps if you read posting carefully it would not be necessary to go over old ground.
Kennedy was sent a tape of John Reilly by Irish collector Tom Munnelly. It was made clear that the tape was for his personal interest, not for publication, yet it was put in his catalogue and, despite decades of requests to remove it, it remained there until after his death. He did the same with tapes of the Carpenter Collection which he was sent for review.
While employed as a collector for the BBC he persuaded source singers to sign contracts passing the rights of the songs over to him (and, in some cases, any songs they might remember in the future). On numerous occasions I know of, attempts at publishing traditional songs were met with demands from him for royalties, claiming that the songs originated from 'his' versions (bearing in mind the fact that (a) these were traditional songs and (b) he was employed to collect them on behalf of the BBC and EFDSS).
I go along completely with those who question the behaviour of the bloggers; my point is that there appears to be a sea-change in the attitude of singers regarding the ownership and sharing of songs. Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that the the bloggers are not claiming or receiving payment for what they are doing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:56 PM

Jim Carroll,I have found two of your posts,not the one I was looking for,but this will do[How were source singers influenced by the revival]
14 JULY 07 3 43
15 JULY 07 3 59.In both of these posts you criticise KENNEDY ,Accusing him of robbing travellers children of their royalties,and also saying[do you know any collectors who sell what they have collected, apart from Peter Kennedy who sold anything anybody collected]the implication here is quite clear.
So its not ok for Kennedy to rob travellers of their royalties,but its ok for bloggers to deny songwriters of their royalties.
If that is not double standards ,Idont know what is.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:27 PM

JIM CARROLL,I distinctly recall you saying on this forum,that you sent Peter Kennedy a recording ,which he never returned to you,and that he didnt return it to you when you requested it,you also said that Seamus Ennis had called him a thief,and you gave the impression in your post ,that you concurred with this.
I do not have time to waste finding this particular post,but I do remember clearly your post,check it out.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:55 PM

"...the industry works the way it does because that's the way industry works period. you can't separate any definition of folk music away from the rest of the music industry and try to apply different rules. where would u draw the line? no, the system is this way because that's how it evolved, via practice, market forces and case law - like anything else..."

But surely the blogger / bootlegger is a prerequisite of such capitalist functionalism? How else might we account for the continued existence of such a creature? Or else accomodate them into our 'realistic' world view?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:36 PM

Just before anyone jumps in, I know all about the BBC angle re the Kennedy story, and that's a different issue altogether.

In terms of copyright the situation was and remains clear.

Those songs were and still are in public ownership.

In fact I myself have registered a number of arrangements of songs and tunes that Kennedy collected (all from the Channel Islands, like me), as anyone may.

I repeat: the arrangement royalty only goes to the arranger, for that specific and very narrowly defined arrangement (usally only for actual perfromances BY the arranger him or herself).

Anyone else can do their own versions, and they'll get all the loot for that particular version.

It's not theft. It's just what make the whole wide world go round.

Tom again

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:14 PM

Jim are you a writer?

If not it may have passed you by that we don't ask for or get royalties when we 'give' a song to someone.

Royalties slip in by the back door much later, when the PRS eventually pick up on our performances, and finally get round to sending the money to us.

Say Maccoll decided to 'pass' on the royalties to 'Champion at Keepin' 'Em Rolling.' The only way he could do this would be never to register the song with the PRS - and make sure his publisher never did do so either (remember, publishers get a small slice of the action too). And never to tell anyone he wrote it either, (because registration that can be done retrospectively, years later - up to 70 years after the writer's death in fact - I believe).

If he did in fact register Champion , then he'd get his due royalties in the usual way, from any performance via any licenced outlet.

He could tell anyone and everyone that they could use the song for free - and they could. Not a penny changes hands between writer and performer.

The money comes from the punters, as part of the door fee (they are paying to hear those songs) via the promoter, who buys the licence, or as part of the licence fee (in the case of the BBC) or whatever - there are many models.

If MacColl or his publisher had registered 'Champion' it would bring in a steady trickle of money until 70 years after his death. As I assume it does, as I assume he published it.

Now are you sure that there is a catagogue of works written by MacColl that are not listed in the PRS archives? If so, then the man was doing as you say, and waiving royalties because he wanted his songs to be out there.

But they'd have been just as 'out there' if he HAD registered them. Just as available for people to sing (you don't need permission to sing or record a song, it's just polite to ask, specially if you plan to make some changes).

As for Kennedy, I think you'll find that all he did was register arrangements of the songs that he'd arranged. That's all he could do by law anyway. The songs were clearly in public ownership, and you can't claim a trad song of itself, and I'm pretty sure Kennedy never tried to.

You might not like his arrangements, but he was within his rights to register them.

He was also within his rights to charge for copies of his field recordings - just as you would be if you chose to. They were his property, as yours are yours. The recordings, I mean - not the songs.

Now in an ideal world, all your source singers would have been signed up to the PRS (or its equivalent) and their arrangements (yes, just the way a solo voice sings an unaccompanied song constitutes and arrangement as you say) would have been registered when they were recorded.

But that's all THEY could claim. They were not the writers, and they didn't own the songs either.

We owe them thanks and respect for their role in the preservation of the songs, as we do to you and Peter and all the other collectors. But the only person who ever owned the song was the writer, or officially, the author and composer.

So, it follows that the only way to steal a song is to credit it as your composition when it's not. And people do do that.

But equally wrong, but even more annoying in my opinion, is when people are just lazy about accreditiation.

That's how we get someone telling an audience that Cloudstreet wrote Rue or Christy Moore wrote Raglan Road.

Suddenly the path is muddied, and that can lead to all kinds of problems that I've outlined elsewhere.

But these things are usually rectifiable if we are vigilent.

So we try to be.

Tom

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 02:32 PM

"Jim Carroll,you complained about Peter Kennedy stealing your recordings,yet you don't mind bloggers stealing"
Cap'n,
When did I complain about Peter Kennedy stealing my recordings? I am probably one of the few people Peter Kennedy didn't steal from.
My main complaint against St Peter was that he hung a price tag on traditional songs, copyrighting them and claiming payment for them - pretty much the same as appears to be happening now with the copyrighting of 'arrangements' of traditional songs.
Can someone explain to me what an arrangement is. If I was singing again I would look for the texts and tunes of songs to enable me to bring my own interpretation to the singing of them. I would (and do) not hesitate to pass on the words and texts to any song available to me. I would consider it extremely mean minded and petty for anybody to refuse such a request, and would never do so myself.
Jim Carroll
PS MacColl, Tawney and Rossleson were all in the position to demand royalties for their songs. I know that the former two often did not always do so; in MacColl's case he wanted his songs to be circulated; I presume Tawney thought similarly, as did, (I have been told) Rossleson. This did not mean that they refused royalties when available; that would be silly now - wouldn't it.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 01:36 PM

"when it was suggested in a comment to the blogger that he could direct his readership to a legal download site for this album his response was that he didn't think he "could go THAT far"

That's enough to show where he's coming from. Any high pretence of high minded well-wishing or generosity is thus demolished.

BTW I've already mentioned on this thread that I offered a whole album for free download for a while. 4 years later I've met exactly one person who actually downloaded it and burnt a CD from it, and I'm not aware of any promotional benefits from it. We have got booking as a result of short sound clips available on the site.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:59 PM

Guest ...(no name??) the point being that I choose who I invite into my house, as do you, I'm sure. Equally I choose who I give free copies of my album to.

It's not a question of ME trying out the free copies - I have, over the years, given out quite a few as promo and as gifts. This is someone else, not known to me, without my permission, who has decided to give away my album. And not even this stranger, generous as he is to the whole wide world, knows who will take up his offer, or who has taken it up, so it's a fat lot of good to me.

Try, if you can, to stick to the issue. And try very hard to understand one simple legal point here - this is illegal. The fact that it's probably impossible to police doesn't alter the illegality.

Unlike you, I will sign this message as I've signed all the others ...

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:53 PM

Anne, I think 'What the F?' is a troll.

He/she is deliberately missing the point everyone else is makeing - including SoH and BB: consent. (In this analogy your doors WERE locked - by the law and by your on-body message - and the blogger actually broke in).

Let's not feed him or her unless he or she is prepared to post under a real name.

I'm beginning to suspect that WTF may actually BE your blogger seeking revenge LOL!

Tomsk

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,What's the fuss?
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:35 PM

"As someone said (Tom?) earlier on, would you be grateful to an anonymous "well wisher" who liked your property so much that he left your front door open and invited the world to come and help themselves?"

Then keep all your doors closed, locked, bolted and sealed.


"I don't think offering them for free would benefit me much."

Well if you're not prepared to try, you'll never know.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:10 PM

I agree, Tabster.
Jim Carroll,you complained about Peter Kennedy stealing your recordings,yet you dont mind bloggers stealing[or taking without their permission] other peoples,I smell NIMBYISM,talk about double standards.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:46 AM

I'm amazed by the people on this thread who think it's fine for a complete stranger, who made no attempt whatsoever to contact me directly at any stage of this process, to put my album out for free downloads by as many people as read his blog. I'm amazed that you think I should be grateful to (a) the anonymous blogger and (b) the anonymous people who may or may not have taken up the opportunity. When all the blogger needed to do to tell the world about my music, was to either direct his readers to my My Space site, or to my website, or to CD Baby, or to iTunes or to any number of other legal download sites. I would point out that I do my best to ensure my music isn't a secret from the world, that I have never discouraged anyone from singing one of my songs AND that I have not, myself, made copies of other peoples' CDs for friends. At any time. If I want my friends to have a copy of a CD, I buy one for them. That way I support the artist who has created the music in the first place. That seems to me to be the right way to support music and musicians. If I can't afford to do that, I just let my friends hear the music and trust them to buy or not as they decide. "Holier than thou"? I don't think so - but it is the way I choose to do things.

As someone said (Tom?) earlier on, would you be grateful to an anonymous "well wisher" who liked your property so much that he left your front door open and invited the world to come and help themselves?

I have no issue at all with people singing my songs - to that extent, the music is free. If they're singing in a context in which royalties are due, then yes, I do expect the song to be credited to me so that I get my share of the royalties. If they enjoy my albums, which have taken time, money and effort to record, manufacture and distribute, that's great and they can always tell their friends about them - for free, of course. But giving away downloads of my album? Why the hell should anyone do that without my agreement?

Someone earlier made a comparison with lending a book - it's not about lending. It's about making a photocopies of the book and handing it out on street corners. Not surprisingly, there are limits to how many pages of a book you're legally allowed to photocopy. Not surprisingly, international copyright also exists on recordings. Most albums always used to carry a clear notice to this effect - and, guess what - the album in question has the words printed onto the CD itself. "Unauthorised copying, public performance, broadcasting, hiring or rental of this recording prohibited." So my blogging fan has really no excuse.

I think what still sticks in my throat about it all is that when it was suggested in a comment to the blogger that he could direct his readership to a legal download site for this album his response was that he didn't think he "could go THAT far". How hard would it have been to have included a URL, by comparison with uploading my material illegally?

Now you can accuse me of being selfish, or sticking my head in the sand, or putting too high a price on my music, but you'd be wrong. Songwriters, whether in the folk world or out in the Big Wide World of the entertainment industry (and please note that it's an industry), have rights. They may choose to waive those rights, under certain circumstances, but it should be their choice, not the choice of some stranger hiding their own identity behind a nom de plume and a blog. If Billy Bragg and Show of Hands have given permission for free downloads of their music, that's their decision and their choice. In this situation, I was given no choice at all.

The bottom line? Even if I made a lot of money from readers of this blog rushing to buy legal copies of the illegal download (and trust me, that's not happening)it still wouldn't make this form of theft right.

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:18 AM

If I Google our names I get lots of hits, a few of which are Amazon, Tesco and similar trying to sell my CDs for less than I do. And I'm already undercutting Wild Goose.

I don't think offering them for free would benefit me much.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,What's the fuss?
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:13 AM

SoH have been doing that since before they were household names though. So, it's the fact they encouraged their music to be shared around openly that's helped to spread their name like wildfire, that and the fact that it's damned brilliant music of course. The money they lose in CDs that way, they get back over and over from the new people who are brought into their music.

No it won't work for everybody, because I'm afraid that not everybody makes music that others may want to hear, like it or not. However, if your music IS good then it will, I'm sure, benefit you to do that.

'The rest of the world' wouldn't tune in to someone's blog. A few people may do, and who knows, just one of those people may take that music and do something wonderful with it, contact the artist and there you go!

And if that DID happen I very much doubt that any artist would turn down the opportunity that came their way because some 'stranger' had taken the trouble to put their music on their blog for them.

Be grateful that someone considers your music worthy of putting in their blog. Count your blessings and don't look a gift horse in the mouth....and if you are so worried about your music being in the wrong place, then don't advertise any of it on the internet, anywhere, at anytime. Just sell your CD at folk clubs, in brown paper bags so that no-one can see it.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:05 AM

P.S. I think you are encouraging other performers to follow the example of Billy Bragg and SoH. Well OK, it works for them: they are household names and they sell enough CDs and get enough highly paid gigs not to worry about the loss of a few CD sales. It's just a publicity trick capitalising on their existing popularity to get them some more goodwill.

That doesn't work for everybody.

And putting one of their albums on a blog for the rest of the world to help themselves is (a) not the same as "making a copy for your mates" and (b) quite possibly violates the "no profit" rule if the blog in question carries adverts, in which case the provision of free music is designed to increase the advertising revenue.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,What's the fuss?
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:56 AM

Don't share your music then, it's that simple. But don't get all unhappy when you google your name and nowt comes up either.

It's your music, you keep it to yourself. Sooooo simple.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:52 AM

Yup, Billy Bragg and SOH are choosing to share the music of which THEY have copyright. I checked that link too, and I didn't see the bit where they said you should share OTHER artists music in the same way.

You were, as expected, unable to provide an answer to my question.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,What's the fuss?
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:10 AM

"Billy Bragg does it, Show of Hands do it
Billy Bragg and Show of Hands have put a WHOLE ALBUM OF SOMEONE ELSE'S MUSIC on the web to download for free and without that person's permission? Show me."


Billy Bragg and Show of Hands both share their music with everyone. SoH stand on the stage every time they perform and ask people to share their music around if they want, to copy their CDs, to pass it on. They have no problems with it in the slightest. Yes, they give their permission, but they also realise how important it is to get your music 'out there' and that's the BEST way to do it!

Let it fly and don't worry about it because if it's good it will fly back to you in many new ways.

Billy Bragg has no problem with the same thing, so long as there's no profit involved.

Billy Bragg's OK about it


Both acts are successful, both acts have loads of fans who happily pass their music around and bring in loads of others. Apparently I'd have to ask your permission to do that, therefore I wouldn't bother to pass it on.

So tell me, who loses out?

Oh...and how many of you here have copied films from the TV then, on to video? Or recorded something off the radio? Or a friend has given you a 'copy' (shock! horror!) of a CD they have.

Come on, hands up

EXACTLY

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:45 AM

By the way - I am a musician (though now semi professional - a completely different ball game I know, I have run a professional recording studio in the past and now run a location recording set up.
So these issues affect me to.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,tom
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:41 AM

yes and the leakiness is what we're battling. its so easy to point to a download site, and as weve seen in this thread a lot of people think music should be available for free.

if there are too many outlets for free music, and too many nozzles that spread that outlet we'll soon loose a transaction which makes the rest of the industry work

quality will drop, there will be fewer pros and fewer concerts.

some will be happy about this, but I'm content doing this, and I'm not gining up without a fight! lol

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:40 AM

One other interesting idea from Magnatune was to allow customers to download the album immediately if they had ordered a physical CD.
This had the plus of capturing those that wanted "instant" access to the music.

This brings up another difference with folkies, and perhaps this is just my impression, but most folkies I know are UNlikely to be using ipods etc extensively and ARE more likely to be ok about waiting for the postman to arrive with their new CD!

Per track download, I agree, are likely to be unpopular for folk music.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:12 AM

"A new way needs to be found"
It certainly does, but however the music is distributed the recording process has to be paid for.

I've recently been talking to Doug Bailey at Wild Goose Records about that. He knows the industry isn't going to be CD based for ever. The problem is how to set up an economic basis for creating good quality recordings when they are sold by download. It's easy now because the majority of the sales are still CDs, even if the tracks are also available via Woven Wheat Whispers, who I agree they are doing a great job. The iTunes model seems to be working well too, but again it's mostly selling tracks that are also being produced as CDs, and I'd guess that the cost of recording is still met mostly by CD sales, not by downloads.

The music retail business is going downhill rapidly, but it's interesting to note that the biggest drop in revenue is from the high-volume (pun noted but not intended) pop music end of the market. The retailers are now far more interested than previously in the minority genres like folk music because they now account for a significant percentage of the remaining sales.

That's one reason why folk music will probably continue on CD for a while. Doug suggested other reasons too:
- buyers are more likely to want the whole album, not just one song
- buyers are often interested in the accompanying booklet notes that you don't get with a download.
- many sales are on the back of club and festival gigs, where the purchaser has enjoyed the musical experience is ready to pay to take a piece of it away right now, without waiting to buy or download something later. Hence the growth in selling real-time CDR burns of the concert as the punters leave the venue (not in the folk world, but it does happen elsewhere)

We discussed other sales mechanisms too, such as having the retailer produce CDs on demand and pay the label a license fee per copy produced, downloading anything he didn't already have in digital "stock" on his server.

One of the problems with that and with internet based retail mechanisms is that a great deal of trust is involved, and the internet is very leaky.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,tom bliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:07 AM

perhaps I shoul add that cd sales and royalties add up to about 30% of my income.

so it does work, and it does matter.

without them I'd have to give up touring and get a day job

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,tom
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:03 AM

yes. we can't do much about the costs side. I do much of the work myself, but that still costs because I have to eat and pay the bills meanwhile.

on ths sales side we need to sell more at a lower price. which means a broader marketplace. hence itunes, woven wheat, myspace etc.

but it can't happen overnight.

the sums have to add up somehow, and they won't if careless oiks who haven't stopped to think what they are actually doing blithely subvert our efforts in a mistaken belief they are doing us a favour!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:38 AM

Of course you are right - the old way of doing DOES NOT WORK cos the MATHS DONT ADD UP.


A new way needs to be found

that is all I have been trying to say.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,tom
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:30 AM

£250 a day in the studio? yes and it takes anything up to 15 days to do an album. plus session musicians. mastering. then there's graphics (with copyright fees for pictures oh yes) MCPS, and the launch costs.

you do the math. again :-)

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:30 AM

Treewind - nothing wrong with that - I just like to get you going.

Its not difficult.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:24 AM

OH YES 100,SORRY leadfingers.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:23 AM

that is the whole point, we as performers have a right to have control over our own publicity,our own material.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:22 AM

At £250 per day in the studio?
£600 for 500 pressings?

What's wrong with that?
4-8 days in the studio, mixing and mastering time, glass master, graphics (somebody's got to do it, takes time and it's a skilled job to get it in the format the pressing plant wants). Maybe a well rehearsed solo artist can record an album in a day but that's exceptional.
It's in the ballpark. The figures don't matter, it's the decreasing cost with increasing sales volumes that's the point, and the reason why the music industry likes to promote a few million-selling superstars instead of thousands of lesser artists, and why folk CD's are more expensive (phew! nearly back on topic again).

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,tombliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:20 AM

let It out? good grief! we spend our entire LIVES letting it out! promotion is 24/7 (why do u think I'm writing this? grin)

but there has to be some control. there is a strategy, and there are caveats (like checking the quality of the download and the veracity of the info)

we are running businesses and we care about our reputations and our customers (grin again).

we're here making a living because we pay attention to detail and keep our ships on course.

there are times i'll take a punt and times I won't.

sometimes I get it right and sometimes I don't, but its my decision ok? and that's a human right. no less.

would you let a stranger do your job?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:56 AM

"I'm obviously missing something here"

Giving away your own stuff is fine, giving away other people's stuff isn't.
What's not to understand about that?

Billy Bragg does it, Show of Hands do it
Billy Bragg and Show of Hands have put a WHOLE ALBUM OF SOMEONE ELSE'S MUSIC on the web to download for free and without that person's permission? Show me.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:49 AM

guest, whats the fuss ,yes you are missing something,the problem is asking people permission,or courtesy,if that person gives permission it is all fine,but they should be contacted first.
Jim Carroll,you are wrong about Cyril Tawney, have you checked your facts about Leon Rosselson,I would be surprised if he didnt want royalties he is entitled to.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:42 AM

"The problem with pressed CD prices for folk music is one of sales volume. The cost of making an album in the studio and getting a pressing run of 500 CDs is typically £2000-3000. The cost of re-pressing the next 500 is about £500, but you're doing reasonably well if you even get that get that far. A commercial CD that sells tens of thousands is far cheaper per copy to produce, hence popular classics for a fiver in the shops."


At £250 per day in the studio?
£600 for 500 pressings?
Take your point about the reality of sales figures though. So its always going to be difficult.

I don't come across many of the very home made products any more - most look like decent product, thats not difficult to achieve these days.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,What's the fuss?
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:24 AM

I'm obviously missing something here. If people spend their time trying to promote the music of others, spreading YOUR music around the world, via the internet...and if they're not making a penny out of doing that, where is the problem?

So you may lose out on one or two sales of CDs. But you may gain far, far more. You may not. But it does happen.

Why do so many of you want to keep your music hidden away and under strict, total control?

Let it OUT!!

Billy Bragg does it, Show of Hands do it and it WORKS! Get people to share the music, let the do it. So occasionally someone may download your music for free...but they may love that music and come and buy more, or tell others about it and so it spreads.

You should surely be thankful that there are those who care enough about your music to spread the word far and wide.

The other option is that you just play it to your buddies and no-one else but you and them know about it.

Relax, the internet isn't going to bankrupt you, it's not going to lose you millions, but it could just get your name out there, your music more widely appreciated and known about.

Alternatively, just don't ever record anything, ever again. That way no-one will buy it, know about it or hear it. But at least you'll be in TOTAL control!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:17 AM

Thanks for all your time and effort on this thread Tom.

Appreciated